Spec URL: http://cicku.me/fdm.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/fdm-1.7-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: fdm is a program to fetch mail and deliver it in various ways depending on a user-supplied ruleset. Mail may be fetched from stdin, IMAP or POP3 servers, or from local maildirs, and filtered based on whether it matches a regexp, its size or age, or the output of a shell command. It can be rewritten by an external process, dropped, left on the server or delivered into maildirs, mboxes, to a file or pipe, or any combination. fdm is designed to be lightweight but powerful, with a compact but clear configuration syntax. It is primarily designed for single-user uses but may also be configured to deliver mail in a multi-user setup. In this case, it uses privilege separation to minimise the amount of code running as root. Fedora Account System Username: cicku
HAYASHI, please assign to you the ticket, not only put the flag in "?"
Ah! Eduardo Echeverria, Thank you pointed out!
At first glance, it seems that BuildRequires byacc is missing. yacc -d parse.y make: yacc: Command not found make: *** [y.tab.c] Error 127 make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... imap-common.c: In function 'imap_base64_encode':
NEW SPEC URL: http://cicku.me/fdm.spec NEW SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/fdm-1.7-2.fc20.src.rpm
Hi, rpmlint says: fdm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minimise -> minimize, miniseries minimise -> minimize ^ It seems fdm does not contain separate license text files, but Licencse: in spec describes GPLv3, on the otherhand, web site indicates (http://sourceforge.net/projects/fdm/) BSD. what should I confirm?
(In reply to HAYASHI Kentaro from comment #5) > It seems fdm does not contain separate license text files, but Licencse: in > spec describes GPLv3, on the otherhand, web site indicates > (http://sourceforge.net/projects/fdm/) BSD. what should I confirm? fedora-review: it seems ISC license is used. (fdm/licensecheck.txt)
OK. I'll change license to ISC for -3. Kick that bullshit of speeling-error ;) Spec URL: http://cicku.me/fdm.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/fdm-1.7-3.fc20.src.rpm
I've reviewed comment 7 spec. Short summary: APPROVED. Details: 1. rpmlint -i shows 7 warning but it seems trivial spelling error, so It's OK. 2. koji build succeeds, so It's OK. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5682390 3. fedora-review succeeds, there is no blocker issue. Here is the details of fedora-review: ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 7 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Uses parallel make. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
Thank you. Minimise is a correct word, this is rpmlint's fault. ;)
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: fdm Short Description: A simple lightweight tool of fetching, filtering and delivering emails Owners: cicku Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC:
"minimise" is British English spelling, "minimize" would be American English: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#summary
Git done (by process-git-requests).
fdm-1.7-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fdm-1.7-3.fc19
fdm-1.7-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fdm-1.7-3.fc18
fdm-1.7-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
fdm-1.7-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
fdm-1.7-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.